Hmmm...that's an attitude that's completely contrary to the initiator of the thread (you), who seemed to be very upset that some sophisticated players stacked the rack in their favor. Are you saying now that you wouldn't mind that, as long as you could spit in their chalk?
Pattern Racking
- Thread starter Paul Schofield
- Start date
Hmmm...that's an attitude that's completely contrary to the initiator of the thread (you), who seemed to be very upset that some sophisticated players stacked the rack in their favor. Are you saying now that you wouldn't mind that, as long as you could spit in their chalk?
For whatever reason, people keep getting sidetracked in this thread. Here is the debate that people are having that has already been addressed and beyond the scope of this thread... "Whether the rule that is currently in place and not enforceable (placing the one and nine only) should be changed to be a particular pattern instead." Let me be clear, THIS IS NOT THE DEBATE Paul is trying to have. Even Bob Jewitt said that at his last rules committee meeting that they discussed it and threw it out.
Paul is merely suggesting a method to ensure enforcement of the current rule, which "should" require a random rack but, for whatever reason, is not clear to some people, and at best, unenforceable by officials and opponents.
Paul is merely suggesting a method to ensure enforcement of the current rule, which "should" require a random rack but, for whatever reason, is not clear to some people, and at best, unenforceable by officials and opponents.
Personally, I've tried to point out that the RULE-MAKERS have been "sidetracked" in erroneously believing that randomness is equivalent to "fairness."
Would it be fair, and sensible, (and avoid "sidetracking") if players were randomly assigned cues before each game, varying in length from 12 inches to 96 inches?
Obviously, the original rule-makers made the naive assumption that placement of balls other than the 1 and the 9 was unimportant. Experience has shown that to be not true--and new realities have to be taken into account by rule-makers.
A plan to randomize ball placement is problematic for many reasons (there are obvious ways to scam the randomization process described in the OP--to at least increase the odds of getting certain balls in certain places). It's needs to be pointed out to those who wish to consider such things that there is an EASY way to solve ALL the problems presented by patterned racking--and that's to formalize a pattern and make all racks in competition conform.
That's not true. His suggestion of "breaker shoots first" is a HUGE CHANGE to current rules--and I happen to think it's an interesting and insightful idea. And it, by the way, REMOVES a great deal of randomness from the game he wishes to randomize.
There's an arbitrary conflict between wanting to randomize rack configurations yet REMOVE randomizations in who shoots first (decided by whether a ball is "slopped in" or not--Paul's terminology and logic).
Consistency in reasoning demands the removal of that conflict--which I suggest: Make racks non-random by formalizing a rack pattern (since it's IMPOSSIBLE to make racks truly random, anyhow), and make first shooter non-random (by implementing "breaker shoots first"). It can't possibly be suggested those are "unfair," and their implementation would solve ALL POSSIBLE ARGUMENT/DISSATISFACTION about rack patterns, and remove a significant portion of "luck" complaints that, in fact, currently plague tournament 9-ball play (complaints that are really behind the rise of 10-ball in tournaments).
This is an Archie Bunker solution. I remember in the 70’s when there was an airline high jacking every other day. Rather than set up intense security in the airport, Archie’s solution to security was to hand everyone a gun as they were boarding a plane.
Pattern racking generates pattern layouts. This concept is widely known and is accepted as truth, otherwise, no one would bother to pattern rack and it would not be an issue. Pattern layouts detract from the fun of the game. Variety and some level of chance is good for pool. This is not about fairness at all.
We need to search for ways to guarantee that no player will be pattern racked.
Last edited:
I think the rules youve stated for for randomly putting the balls in the rack spinning it moving 1 and 9 and stepping away so breaker can spot them is absolutley the best idea yet.Its very simple and fair.Why dont they just make it the rule and stop all the arguing.Brilliant idea. Thanks for the contribution Pual.
It seems you're the type who simply doesn't want to give up an idea--because it's your idea (that's the real Archie Bunder character). When you say that "We need to search for ways to guarantee that no player will be pattern racked" what you really mean is that no player will be unfairly pattern racked. I've already noted that the way 9-ball is now racked produces the high probability pattern that the 9-ball will stay in the foot of the table--thus, you actually do not have a problem with patterns; it's reasonable to infer that you have a problem with unfair patterns. Indeed, why rack the 1-ball in front--which produces the pattern of the 1-ball nearer the table head? There's no actual need for that (the rules could absolve players from "lowest numbered ball must be hit first" on the break shot). Apparently, neither you nor any player I've ever heard of has found a problem with the patterning of the 1 OR the 9 in 9-ball. I've never heard anyone mention that 9-ball isn't fun because the 1 usually ends up near the head after the break and the 9 near the foot! Doesn't your remark about "fun" sound ridiculously contrived after reading that? The same pattern for everyone isn't unfair--and I can't imagine anyone saying it would make 9-ball less "fun!" Everyone knows that, even though some statistically relevant pattern CAN be shown with certain orderings, that doesn't mean that there isn't also a very strong randomizing of ball position after any hard break.
Furthermore, just because you find it comfortable to imagine that your system would be "random" doesn't in fact make it so. By just placing balls in the rack there are obvious opportunities to introduce the probability of a pattern. Are you going to ask for people to be blindfolded when they put the balls in the rack?
Obviously, the problem with patterning is that it can be made "good" and "bad" at the decision of the racker. "Good" generally means that the 1-3 have a tendency to go together to an area of the table, and "bad" means a back-and-forth, up-and-down the table pattern for the 1-3. But the fact is, that no matter HOW you rack 9-ball, there will turn out to be patterns of back-and-forth and all-in-one-place. That will be true for the ordered racking that I suggested--and each rack (I can assure you) would have easy series of balls, and difficult series of balls.
Are you trying to make the ridiculous assertion that you KNOW that racking in the way I recommend will produce obvious and repeated patterns that are NOTICEABLE and distinctly UNPLEASANT for most players? I question how you could possibly have acquired that information (actually I don't question it, I know how you got it: you just made it up).
I'll repeat again the OBVIOUS: people don't like patterns when they make for UNFAIR PLAY. If everyone faces the SAME pattern (like having all the balls on the other guy's side, when he breaks in 1-pocket), then it's not a bother--at least I've never heard anyone complain. I've never heard anyone complain that racking a solid and a striped at the corners in 8-ball produces a pattern (a pattern of a lesser likelihood of pocketing an especially strong weighting of solids or stripes on the break). Do people complain about that? Do they say "I think the corner balls should be RANDOM, so those times when the balls made on the break are especially heavily weighted to solids or stripes will occur more often--THAT will take the boredom out of 8-ball!!" No, of course they don't.
Your suggested "problem" with a specified rack ordering--that people will notice and dislike the repeated patterning--is contrived. But the potential problems with your "randomizing" idea are real: some people will constantly be analyzing the racks and finding excuses to complain about the ordering, and some people, BY LUCK, may find themselves with a series of objectively bad patterns in a short match--and either suspect their opponent of scamming the randomization process (or the reverse, if it's rack your own), or not randomizing PROPERLY (or sufficiently), or grouse about how the randomization process screwed them BY LUCK.
You are inconsistent when you complain about the "luck" of the break vis a vis "slopping balls," but ignore the component of luck as it relates to a good pattern vs a bad pattern showing up in a "random" pattern.
One can't claim to be reasonable and logical and be inconsistent at the same time.
Last edited:
How bout have someone just throw the balls out there and then spot the cue ball on the head spot and let the player whos turn it is at the table have at it. Any balls that fell during the throw out gets spotted.
This way, there can never be the same layout and no break what so ever.
AMEN!!! Finally an intelligent post on here. Too many players want to make rules against intelligence. If you have taken the time to study your break and where certain balls end up, then more power to you. It is the same thing with players against breaking soft in 9 ball. If it gives that player an advantage, then the complaining player(s) should spend the time and money to learn that skill also.
The answer depends somewhat on who racks. Who do you say should rack?
"Rack your own" seems to solve most problems and complaints (as long as the rack is reasonably straight, etc.).
If one person is going to do all the racking, then I think it would be easiest to feel everything was always fair if ALL the balls were racked in a consistent order.
Sounds good, if the rules change. Until then the point is mute since it's is against the rules as they stand now.
Look
Not many people know about the 'random' pattern rule.
Second, it is, I believe, unenforceable. And even if you tried to enforce it, it would cause more trouble than it would solve.
And that is the bottom line, and no amount of complaining on a website will change that.
Not many people know about the 'random' pattern rule.
Second, it is, I believe, unenforceable. And even if you tried to enforce it, it would cause more trouble than it would solve.
And that is the bottom line, and no amount of complaining on a website will change that.
I will tell you my take on this thread: I put forward a very do-able, simple and fast method to guarantee a random rack. I was expecting the process to get mocked, dissected, analyzed, and torn apart. Instead of getting a critique, I hit a raw nerve and got all the pattern rackers espousing the virtues of their illegal practice...not much help.
Last edited:
Pual I dont give a flyin (blank) what they say ur abs right.Thers 2 posters here that wont play if they cant pattern rack.Even better one of them if u have the option to switch 2 balls after they rack cant get out 50% of there normal runnouts. If they really runout so good why do they protest ur idea? Rack ur own is nothing more than setting up a trick shot.Put 8 balls in the same place every time and practice for a few weeks and if you cant get out u should find a new sport. For pros lets just start playin 15 ball.Or 3 ball and make it really quick.9 ball was a great game. 9 foul everything spots behind the line on the break thats a game.How many young guys ever practiced spot shots?
First, the part you quoted me on, was me saying that the specific "random pattern method" was a suggested method to enforcing the current rule. I was not considering his "removing the ball-on-the-break requirement" that you replied with.
So... let me try to be as clear as possible here...
New method for racking = no conflicts over pattern of balls.
and
Removing ball-on-break requirement = no conflicts on whether or not there are tiny spaces between balls, or if a ball went in on the break. (A luck shot no matter how you look at it.)
Lastly, the removal of ball-on-the-break is not meant to "remove randomizations of who shoots first" as you say, it's meant to quit the conflicts and endless gadgets that surround the rack, and racking in general. If a ball doesn't go in on the break, the breaker feels "cheated" because every ball wasn't super frozen together, or the rack was tilted 1 degree, or the humidity was up 2%, or the moon wasn't in the right position... you get my drift.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying say (i.e., perhaps I don't "get your drift"). "Removing randomizations" is done in order to avoid conflicts. So, you're drawing a distinction where there's no difference.
My response was directed toward Paul's "no conflict" rules as discussed here, and here, Where he discusses the arbitrariness of the first shot depending on EITHER some sort of rack manipulation OR a ball getting slopped in.
I happen to completely agree with what he's saying: Key parts of the game should NOT depend on stealth circumvention of current rules (rack stacking) or luck (slopping balls in, on the break or otherwise). IMO the cleanest and easiest way to avoid those problems is a rule-ordered rack, and breaker takes the first shot. Oh, and furthermore, I would also include use of a magic rack, and table markings for both the top and bottom racked ball--along with rule-compelled ball order. Doing that would give as precisely the same breaking conditions to all players as humanly possible. If the breaker then was required to shoot after the break, and breaks alternated, then each player would truly be on a precisely level playing field; although I would suggest allowing "winner breaks" on very long matches, to promote stringing of runs.
Oh, and btw, Paul has mentioned that a certain amount of "luck" adds to player "fun." That luck can easily be accommodated, without a serious professional effect, by keeping the broad rule of "lowest ball first" -- so that banging on balls that pockets other balls randomly (including the 9) is still possible during regular play. Indeed, it's THAT luck that most excites the crowd (the occasional ball, or 9, that goes in unexpectedly during play)--but which has minimal actual impact in high-level play.
Last edited:
I think it's important that people see the logical difference between "randomizing racks" and "randomizing table layouts."
It's IMPOSSIBLE to rack 9 ball without a pattern present. You can rack a random pattern, but not a pattern that is random. IOW, if the balls are racked without any human effort to produce a good or bad pattern, still, the balls themselves WILL be racked in a way that produces a good or bad pattern.
To rack the balls "randomly" in order to achieve "random" results for the breaker REALLY means that he will end up with a "random assortment" of good patterns and bad patterns--which, given enough racks played, will achieve a normally distributed frequency of rack types (which is NOT going to happen in a single tournament or match).
"random" racking == EVENTUAL fairness, over a long period of time, in patterns different players face.
"stipulated" racking == IMMEDIATE fairness in the racks players face.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to rack 9 ball without a pattern present. You can rack a random pattern, but not a pattern that is random. IOW, if the balls are racked without any human effort to produce a good or bad pattern, still, the balls themselves WILL be racked in a way that produces a good or bad pattern.
To rack the balls "randomly" in order to achieve "random" results for the breaker REALLY means that he will end up with a "random assortment" of good patterns and bad patterns--which, given enough racks played, will achieve a normally distributed frequency of rack types (which is NOT going to happen in a single tournament or match).
"random" racking == EVENTUAL fairness, over a long period of time, in patterns different players face.
"stipulated" racking == IMMEDIATE fairness in the racks players face.
Last edited:
sad..
It's really just a sad thing... It sounds like to me that all you people want is to dumb down pool, lower the game to a standard level of mediocrity in order to give someone a shot to win. When really all this has nothing to do with winning...
Get smart about the rack, learn how to play, get in the box and play against these players. You will get better or at least realize that people are inherently on different levels regardless of limitations or conditions etc. The BETTER PLAYER WILL WIN... provided he doesn't dog it.
For those who think that removing the ball on the break requirement will eliminate people fiddling the rack to make sure it's tight can also expect disappointment. The players are still going to ensure they have a good rack so as to predict where are the balls are going. They can't do that if the balls are irregularly touching. That's the honest truth.
People have gotten through to the center of nine ball and found it's limits. Now that people are starting to exploit that and really maximize it there seems like no one wants to adapt and push the game. Instead the plea to minimize everything and try and pull the reigns back on the game. It's one thing to be trying to make sure people don't take too long on the rack and slow a match down but to say you can't rack the balls one way or do this or do that is ridiculous. Just play the match, stay focused and win. JMO
It's really just a sad thing... It sounds like to me that all you people want is to dumb down pool, lower the game to a standard level of mediocrity in order to give someone a shot to win. When really all this has nothing to do with winning...
Get smart about the rack, learn how to play, get in the box and play against these players. You will get better or at least realize that people are inherently on different levels regardless of limitations or conditions etc. The BETTER PLAYER WILL WIN... provided he doesn't dog it.
For those who think that removing the ball on the break requirement will eliminate people fiddling the rack to make sure it's tight can also expect disappointment. The players are still going to ensure they have a good rack so as to predict where are the balls are going. They can't do that if the balls are irregularly touching. That's the honest truth.
People have gotten through to the center of nine ball and found it's limits. Now that people are starting to exploit that and really maximize it there seems like no one wants to adapt and push the game. Instead the plea to minimize everything and try and pull the reigns back on the game. It's one thing to be trying to make sure people don't take too long on the rack and slow a match down but to say you can't rack the balls one way or do this or do that is ridiculous. Just play the match, stay focused and win. JMO
Ultimately, people play games as they "want to."
I think what most players "want" is to be able to make all shots, achieve pinpoint position, and generate clever and insightful table-play strategy. I don't think anyone wants to "dumb down" pool--because nobody can yet ACHIEVE perfection throughout an entire tournament, in the skills I've mentioned.
ALL games have to have rules, which are limitations. The vast majority of people want rules that make play "fair" between players within boundaries that test certain skills and not others.
So, is it "dumbing down" pool, for example, to have rules that say you can't let out a scream just as a player is about to hit the cue ball? Why isn't that "dumbing down" pool? Afterall, it would be possible to train yourself to be able to ignore such screams--so shouldn't the game go the player who can? No. Because pool players do not want to compete over that skill, or make it part of the game.
Similarly, most players have no interest in spending more time improving ways to "game" the break, and less on shot-making, position accuracy, and safety/strategy talents. If they DO spend inordinate time on "break research" it's because they have to, because of a "weakness" in the current rules that allow it to happen (such as pattern racking that APPEARS to be random).
Last edited: